Category talk:Manual of Style
Redirect Proposal The category only list the various sub-pages or the Manual of Style article, all of which can be found on the article page itself. --silverstrike 11:44, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :If this category page was converted to a redirect, it would still be a category linking all the MoS pages together. I don't see the point in having a working, in-use category be a redirect instead. Even if this category was removed from all the MoS pages, who's going to be searching for this category that would make redirecting it worthwhile? Deleting it would be more straightforward. I oppose the redirect proposal. -- Commdor (Talk) 17:26, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I concede to your superior argument. I'll add a delete tag and start the discussion anew. --silverstrike 18:03, July 4, 2011 (UTC) Deletion Proposal The category only list the various sub-pages for the Manual of Style article, all of which can be found on the article page itself. --silverstrike 18:05, July 4, 2011 (UTC) :Support deletion. -- Commdor (Talk) 20:51, July 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Oppose deletion because while all of the links can be found on the main page, having this category does not harm anything and is consistent with other wikis as they categorize their policy pages and things like that. It's a navigation and organization thing and I cannot see a good reason for removal and deletion of the category. Lancer1289 16:32, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :::I strongly believe that having redundant (and I do see this category as redundant) categories only distract users from the real content and not help them find what they are looking for. A link in Wiki maintenance and/or Help categories is far more helpful for users in finding what they are looking for. In regards to what other wikis are doing: well, I hope it works for them. I can search various wikis and find guidelines that are forbidden here - does this mean that we should change our guideline? --silverstrike 17:28, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::I was merely making a point that most wikis do have categories for things like their editing policies and rules that pool those pages into an easy to find area. I did not say, nor imply for that matter, and I really don't see how you got the impression we should change ours to match theirs. What I merely pointed out was the fact that having a category for the pages where we list our policies shouldn't be deleted as it makes navigation easy, and if someone can't find it, then they can type in the category and find what they are looking for. Lancer1289 18:06, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :::::I apologize. I didn't mean to offend. I still don't see how it help in organizing or navigation - putting a link to the page that list and describe what content each sub-page contains, is much more clear and useful. --silverstrike 18:28, July 5, 2011 (UTC) ::::::However I was merely stating that having a category for various policies about the wiki, and more specific ones when necessary, is expected as people can navigate their way around easier if they can't find something specific. Many other wikis that I've looked at have a category for something like this, even if all of the links to those pages are there as well. The category doesn't hurt and can only help with navigation and categorization of policy and editing guideline articles. If another category was proposed for something like that, e.g. grouping all of the policy and editing guideline pages into one category, then you'd probably have my support on deletion, but for now, having this doesn't hurt, and can only help with categorization and navigation. I also don't see what was offensive in your comment, or that could be taken as offensive for that matter, so there is really no reason to apoloigize for that. Lancer1289 18:35, July 5, 2011 (UTC) Support deletion. SpartHawg948 20:21, July 5, 2011 (UTC) :Support deletion. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem 21:05, July 5, 2011 (UTC) The deletion proposal passes 4-1. I'll delete this shortly. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:11, July 11, 2011 (UTC)